Have lab-grown diamonds changed the diamond industry forever?

Kodak never saw it coming either.

Since early 2022, the price of polished natural diamonds has fallen approximately 40% and the industry is being buffeted by negative economic headwinds, an excess of mine supply and too much stock in the cutting centres. However, there is one statistic that cannot be ignored: around 50% of Diamond Engagement Rings purchased in the United States now contain a Lab Grown Diamond (LGD). Is this just another cyclical downturn or are we in the middle of a major structural change?

Diamonds were once the preserve of royalty and the uber-wealthy, but the diamond market has evolved over the past 80 years into more of a mass market product with democratisation of the diamond consumer. Since the late 1970s most polished diamonds below 5 carats were priced against the 4 ‘C’s’ (carat, clarity, colour and cut), which led to standardised pricing in the form of polished diamond pricing lists. Up until the turn of the century these lists were primarily available in the wholesale market, but the arrival of internet pricing soon gave the consumer access to that same standardised pricing. In a world where everyone knows the price of everything, branding is the only differentiator. Without a differentiator, commoditised products end up selling for the lowest price.

It was why one of the questions that De Beers tried to answer when it changed its business model 25 years ago was: “How do you take a necessity (the diamond) priced like a commodity and market it as a luxury priced like a brand?”

Unfortunately, that question remains unanswered. The industry did create hundreds of so-called ‘brands’; origin, cut, settings, etc; the problem was that very few of them were real “brands”. If something does not sell at a premium, it’s not a brand, and most natural diamonds sell at a discount, yet the more that the industry was unable to achieve a premium, the more it becomes fixated with talking about the “product” when the luxury world has spent the last 25 years talking about “values”.

The challenge for most jewellers is not making a sale, it is making a reasonable margin. Ask a jeweller what they are selling and if they reply “VS1, G-H colour, loose polished, 1-caraters” then the most relevant word in their business will be “discounting”, because what they are selling is a commoditised version of “crystallised carbon.” There is no differentiator.

The LGD industry realised that to succeed it simply needed to persuade consumers that natural diamonds and LGDs were the same – “optically, physically and chemically”, but to also position them as “slightly cheaper”. They could then ride on the back of 80 years of De Beers diamond advertising differentiate themselves by claiming that LGDs were “conflict free”.

A larger “ethical” LGD for the same money as a natural diamond or pay less for the same size, created a money printing machine for everyone involved. And it’s no surprise that LGDs real success has been in the United States, because historically America has always been a “discount market”, and “larger for less” plays to that tune.

If all you want in a diamond is the sparkle, then they are in essence the same. Except there is a very real difference between the two, which is why some LGD executives insist on calling natural diamonds “earth mined” diamonds, because “natural” is exactly what differentiates them. The story of their age, rarity, origin; their social and economic contribution but above all, their “social purpose”. It was the failure of the natural diamond industry to tell that story which opened the door to LGDs.

When LGD production exploded, wholesale prices collapsed to around a 95% to 98% discount to their natural diamond equivalent. Prices vary according to quality, but anecdotal evidence suggests that today in the wholesale market, it is possible to buy a single polished LGD for $150 a carat, buy in volume and its possible to pay as low as $80 a carat.

Many retailers have also dropped their LGD prices, but by no means as far, and even pricing LGD at a 20-40% discount to their natural diamond equivalent can still leave a very significant margin. Pandora will sell you a 1-carat LGD ring for $1,950. Helzberg Jewellers (a Warren Buffet company) will sell you a similar LGD for $1,999. It’s very likely that some in the LGD industry are making a gross margin of 200%, some much more for a product that Signet Jewellers sensibly cautiones it customers “Their relative abundance may not ensure the value will hold over time”.

Whatever happens to future LGD retail prices, the category has got itself into the American consumer psyche and that won’t easily change, although there are also two sides to this story. I heard of a jeweller who was recently asked by a HNWI to make a replica of her 8-carat natural diamond ring so she could wear it travelling. The original ring cost $500,000 but he sourced an equivalent LGD for $5,000, and apparently she was absolutely thrilled with it. The question is, will she buy natural again? On the other hand, if in the future a consumer could buy (for example) a 2-carat LGD engagement ring for below $200, how pleased would their fiancé be to receive it – Walmart recently had a 2-carat LGD ring for sale for only $257. How romantic!

The US bridal market (size over quality) is dominated by larger, lower quality diamonds. Since similar sized LGDs are cheaper (or you get a much better quality LGD), either that market disappears, or demand only reappears aner prices have fallen sharply (already happened). It is also likely that LGDs will replace small, lower quality natural diamonds in fashion jewellery – as they may replace the smaller stones in high-end pieces of natural diamond jewellery. Diamond mining companies whose profitability rely on these categories of diamonds probably need to find a new value proposition, or their days may be numbered.

For those in the natural diamond industry who can adapt, there is huge potential. For those that don’t, as the saying goes, “Kodak never saw it coming either”.

Except Kodak did see it coming; they just didn’t know what to do about it. Kodak was killed off by digital photography which ironically, they invented, patented, but didn’t know how to exploit it, so they franchised the technology and made a fortune until their patents expired, and then went bust. Have LGDs done the same to natural diamonds? “No”, the opposite; their success is forcing a complacent industry to change. Have they changed the paradigm? “Completely”.

Source: DCLA

Hong Kong Busts $64M Diamond Scam

Hong Kong authorities have arrested four people suspected of running a money-laundering syndicate that falsely declared synthetic diamonds as natural.

The operation, which authorities codenamed “Gem Crusher,” was the first money-laundering case using transnational diamond trading the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department has detected, the government organization said Thursday.

On December 19 and 20, customs raided eight premises across multiple areas in Hong Kong, including residential and business locations. So far, authorities have frozen HKD 8.2 million ($1.1 million) in assets belonging to those in custody.

Hong Kong customs officials were alerted to the scheme earlier this year and launched a financial investigation, exchanging information with authorities in India, the department explained.

Members of the crime syndicate had established diamond-trading companies in both Hong Kong and India. Throughout 2021, the syndicate exported low-value lab-grown diamonds from Hong Kong to India with fictitious declarations presenting them as high-value naturals.

The purpose was to “transfer significant amounts of suspicious funds from India to Hong Kong,” authorities alleged. The suspects laundered around HKD 500 million ($64 million), the department claimed.

During the raid, customs seized a “large quantity of suspected synthetic diamonds, a small quantity of natural diamonds, about HKD 1 million [$128,055] in cash, a number of mobile phones, computers, company [seals], checkbooks, bank cards, bank documents and trading documents” from the four suspects, authorities said.

The four men — believed to be the “masterminds, ring leaders and members” of the syndicate — were arrested on suspicion of “dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offense.”

The investigation is ongoing, and further arrests cannot be ruled out, customs noted.

Source: DCLA

Natural-Diamond Trade Hits Back at Pandora

Leading trade organizations have lashed out at Pandora’s recent statements about lab-grown stones, claiming the retailer misrepresented natural diamonds and caused harm to the industry.

Pandora announced it would no longer sell mined diamonds and would instead stock synthetics, linking the decision to its environmental goals. The launch of a lab-grown line will help “transform the market for diamond jewelry with affordable, sustainably created products,” the Danish jeweler asserted last week.

Pandora’s proclamation wrongly positioned lab-grown as an “ethical choice versus natural diamonds,” five jewelry groups said in a joint statement Friday. The signatories were the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC), the Natural Diamond Council (NDC), the World Jewellery Confederation (CIBJO), the World Diamond Council (WDC) and the International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA).

The diamond industry employs tens of millions of people around the world, the organizations pointed out. The communities that benefit from the sector need its support “more than ever” given the hardship resulting from Covid-19, they added.

“The misleading narrative created by the Pandora announcement implying the natural-diamond industry is…less ethical and the impetus behind Pandora’s move to lab-grown diamonds, particularly given the inconsequential [quantity] of diamonds Pandora features in its collections, can have unintended but substantial consequences on communities in developing nations,” the groups said. “The industry organizations have called upon Pandora to support communities by correcting the record.”

Pandora used mined diamonds in about 50,000 of the 85 million pieces it created in 2020, it said.

Pandora was not immediately available for comment.

Source: DCLA

Natural-Diamond Trade Hits Back at Pandora

Leading trade organizations have lashed out at Pandora’s recent statements about lab-grown stones, claiming the retailer misrepresented natural diamonds and caused harm to the industry.

Pandora announced it would no longer sell mined diamonds and would instead stock synthetics, linking the decision to its environmental goals. The launch of a lab-grown line will help “transform the market for diamond jewelry with affordable, sustainably created products,” the Danish jeweler asserted last week.

Pandora’s proclamation wrongly positioned lab-grown as an “ethical choice versus natural diamonds,” five jewelry groups said in a joint statement Friday. The signatories were the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC), the Natural Diamond Council (NDC), the World Jewellery Confederation (CIBJO), the World Diamond Council (WDC) and the International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA).

The diamond industry employs tens of millions of people around the world, the organizations pointed out. The communities that benefit from the sector need its support “more than ever” given the hardship resulting from Covid-19, they added.

“The misleading narrative created by the Pandora announcement implying the natural-diamond industry is…less ethical and the impetus behind Pandora’s move to lab-grown diamonds, particularly given the inconsequential [quantity] of diamonds Pandora features in its collections, can have unintended but substantial consequences on communities in developing nations,” the groups said. “The industry organizations have called upon Pandora to support communities by correcting the record.”

Pandora used mined diamonds in about 50,000 of the 85 million pieces it created in 2020, it said.

Pandora was not immediately available for comment.

Source: DCLA

More Retailers Selling Lab-Grown Diamonds

 

About 38% of independent jewelers are now carrying lab-grown diamonds, according to a new survey by MVI Marketing for the International Grown Diamond Association and InStore magazine.

Consumer awareness of man-made gems is also rising: The company’s MVEye survey of more than 1,000 jewelry consumers found that 80% were aware of lab-grown diamonds. By contrast, in 2018, 58% had heard of the category. A decade ago, less than 10% had.

Some 8% said they owned jewelry with lab-grown diamonds, up from 6% in 2018.

Nearly one-third of jewelry consumers said they learned about lab-grown diamonds from retail jewelers, while another 21% found out about them through social media, specifically the Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube platforms.

The survey found that 22% of jewelry consumers were skeptical at first when they heard about lab-grown diamonds, but 44% wanted to know more, and 17% said their initial reaction was positive.

Over one-third (34%) said they were offered lab-grown diamonds while shopping for an engagement ring, up from 25% in 2018.

While the Federal Trade Commission has specifically warned companies not to use “general environmental benefit claims” like “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” to describe lab-grown (or any) products, the poll found that many consumers had heard that message and retained it, and often used those phrases to describe the category.

Most consumers, however, were simply motivated by the chance to save a little money and get a bigger piece for less, with 31% citing that is the main reason for their purchase.

“At the end of the day, the price-to-size equation is what gets them to open their wallets,” says MVI Marketing CEO Marty Hurwitz. The “eco” message is “the icing on the cake for younger consumers, but it’s not the primary value driver.”

The survey found the most recognized brands in the lab-grown space were e-tailer Brilliant Earth (35%); Diama by Swarovski (34%); Pure Grown Diamonds (27%); Diamond Foundry (24%); Lightbox (24%); Diamond Nexus, which primarily sells simulants but sells lab-growns through another division (22%); and Renaissance (21%).

Hurwitz notes that many retailers said there was a need for “greater unification of marketing presentation” for lab-grown diamonds, so there was a greater clarity about what terminology and sales techniques were allowed and most effective.

Overall, retailers reported mixed results for how their jewelry business was faring in 2020, with 39% saying business was up, 33% finding it down, and 19% reporting it was equal to pre–COVID-19.

As for where consumers wanted to shop this year, 48% said a jewelry chain, 42% said a high-end jeweler, 36% said a local independent, and 15% said online.

As for how they intended to shop during the COVID-19 pandemic, 36% said they wanted to only buy online, 28% said they were looking to visit a store, 17% said they preferred an in-store private appointment, and 11% said they wanted to visit the store and buy online later.

Source: DCLA

More Retailers Selling Lab-Grown Diamonds

 

About 38% of independent jewelers are now carrying lab-grown diamonds, according to a new survey by MVI Marketing for the International Grown Diamond Association and InStore magazine.

Consumer awareness of man-made gems is also rising: The company’s MVEye survey of more than 1,000 jewelry consumers found that 80% were aware of lab-grown diamonds. By contrast, in 2018, 58% had heard of the category. A decade ago, less than 10% had.

Some 8% said they owned jewelry with lab-grown diamonds, up from 6% in 2018.

Nearly one-third of jewelry consumers said they learned about lab-grown diamonds from retail jewelers, while another 21% found out about them through social media, specifically the Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube platforms.

The survey found that 22% of jewelry consumers were skeptical at first when they heard about lab-grown diamonds, but 44% wanted to know more, and 17% said their initial reaction was positive.

Over one-third (34%) said they were offered lab-grown diamonds while shopping for an engagement ring, up from 25% in 2018.

While the Federal Trade Commission has specifically warned companies not to use “general environmental benefit claims” like “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” to describe lab-grown (or any) products, the poll found that many consumers had heard that message and retained it, and often used those phrases to describe the category.

Most consumers, however, were simply motivated by the chance to save a little money and get a bigger piece for less, with 31% citing that is the main reason for their purchase.

“At the end of the day, the price-to-size equation is what gets them to open their wallets,” says MVI Marketing CEO Marty Hurwitz. The “eco” message is “the icing on the cake for younger consumers, but it’s not the primary value driver.”

The survey found the most recognized brands in the lab-grown space were e-tailer Brilliant Earth (35%); Diama by Swarovski (34%); Pure Grown Diamonds (27%); Diamond Foundry (24%); Lightbox (24%); Diamond Nexus, which primarily sells simulants but sells lab-growns through another division (22%); and Renaissance (21%).

Hurwitz notes that many retailers said there was a need for “greater unification of marketing presentation” for lab-grown diamonds, so there was a greater clarity about what terminology and sales techniques were allowed and most effective.

Overall, retailers reported mixed results for how their jewelry business was faring in 2020, with 39% saying business was up, 33% finding it down, and 19% reporting it was equal to pre–COVID-19.

As for where consumers wanted to shop this year, 48% said a jewelry chain, 42% said a high-end jeweler, 36% said a local independent, and 15% said online.

As for how they intended to shop during the COVID-19 pandemic, 36% said they wanted to only buy online, 28% said they were looking to visit a store, 17% said they preferred an in-store private appointment, and 11% said they wanted to visit the store and buy online later.

Source: DCLA

‘Grading’ Is Just for Natural Diamonds, Says CIBJO

 

Laboratories should reserve the term “grading report” for natural diamonds rather than lab-grown stones, the World Jewellery Confederation (CIBJO) has urged.

Lab-grown diamonds lack the rarity that underpins the concept of grading, CIBJO argued Tuesday. Instead, documents providing details of synthetics should be called “Laboratory-Grown Diamond Product Specifications,” the organization says in a new set of guidelines it released to the trade this week.

The standard grading report implies “a degree of rarity of the product,” a CIBJO spokesperson told Rapaport News. “But on the other hand, the consumer has a right to know what the components of the product are. The important element is that the term ‘grading’ is taken out.”

CIBJO’s board has made its new Laboratory-Grown Diamond Guidance available for review by affiliated companies and national associations, the organization said. The consultation phase is the final stage in a two-year process to create harmonized standards for man-made stones.

The rule book, which is not binding, also calls for laboratories to include extra information such as the name of the manufacturer, the country and method of manufacture (chemical vapor deposition or High Pressure-High Temperature), and information about post-growth treatments. It also recommends that the letters “LG” precede the color and clarity grades on the report to indicate the stones are lab-grown.

The guidelines deal with how to describe lab-grown diamonds and display them at events such as trade shows. They also provide recommendations on how companies should disclose the origin of the stones on invoices and consignment documents, and discuss synthetics detection technology.

“A key principle of the Laboratory-Grown Diamond Guidance is that, to ensure confidence, consumers must receive complete and unambiguous information about what they are buying, so that they can make consciously informed purchasing decisions,” CIBJO explained.

CIBJO’s Blue Book, a separate document on grading standards and terminology, notably kept “natural” in its definition of diamonds even after the US Federal Trade Commission dropped the word in 2018.

Source: DCLA

‘Grading’ Is Just for Natural Diamonds, Says CIBJO

 

Laboratories should reserve the term “grading report” for natural diamonds rather than lab-grown stones, the World Jewellery Confederation (CIBJO) has urged.

Lab-grown diamonds lack the rarity that underpins the concept of grading, CIBJO argued Tuesday. Instead, documents providing details of synthetics should be called “Laboratory-Grown Diamond Product Specifications,” the organization says in a new set of guidelines it released to the trade this week.

The standard grading report implies “a degree of rarity of the product,” a CIBJO spokesperson told Rapaport News. “But on the other hand, the consumer has a right to know what the components of the product are. The important element is that the term ‘grading’ is taken out.”

CIBJO’s board has made its new Laboratory-Grown Diamond Guidance available for review by affiliated companies and national associations, the organization said. The consultation phase is the final stage in a two-year process to create harmonized standards for man-made stones.

The rule book, which is not binding, also calls for laboratories to include extra information such as the name of the manufacturer, the country and method of manufacture (chemical vapor deposition or High Pressure-High Temperature), and information about post-growth treatments. It also recommends that the letters “LG” precede the color and clarity grades on the report to indicate the stones are lab-grown.

The guidelines deal with how to describe lab-grown diamonds and display them at events such as trade shows. They also provide recommendations on how companies should disclose the origin of the stones on invoices and consignment documents, and discuss synthetics detection technology.

“A key principle of the Laboratory-Grown Diamond Guidance is that, to ensure confidence, consumers must receive complete and unambiguous information about what they are buying, so that they can make consciously informed purchasing decisions,” CIBJO explained.

CIBJO’s Blue Book, a separate document on grading standards and terminology, notably kept “natural” in its definition of diamonds even after the US Federal Trade Commission dropped the word in 2018.

Source: DCLA